djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 16, 2015 20:12:33 GMT -5
not necessarily. she might freely consent to it. or she might just abort the kid, or adopt it out. none of that would be his choice. only hers.
you are only focusing on that one non-choice, which is accompanied by her choice to not terminate. that choice is hers and hers alone. i see a lot more choice on one side than the other. how about you? Of course there are other choices. In the context of this discussion they are irrelevant. Each of those already grants your hesitant father what he wants, so why talk about them here?
If she chooses to allow him to abdicate? Fine, as I've said. If she aborts, he is free. As I've said. If she adopts the child out, he is free. As I've said.
The discussion is only relevant in the other case. Do you see it differently?
most of those choices would be the same even if the father DID want the baby. in fact, if you go back to where i entered this conversation, that was the very first point i brought up. i got beaten down by everyone, and conceded the point.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 16, 2015 20:14:14 GMT -5
It could be against her religion, she might believe a fetus is a child and have a moral problem with it, she could be concerned about potential physical side effects... i see. so the man is now on the hook for someone else's religious beliefs? wow. ok. didn't see that coming.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 20:20:54 GMT -5
It could be against her religion, she might believe a fetus is a child and have a moral problem with it, she could be concerned about potential physical side effects... i see. so the man is now on the hook for someone else's religious beliefs? wow. ok. didn't see that coming. No, he is not off the hook because a woman could have an abortion but doesn't.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 20:25:35 GMT -5
It could be against her religion, she might believe a fetus is a child and have a moral problem with it, she could be concerned about potential physical side effects... i see. so the man is now on the hook for someone else's religious beliefs? wow. ok. didn't see that coming. Well, technically he would be on the hook because he helped create a pregnancy. That responsibility would not be waived for him as a result of someone else's religious beliefs. I think the distinction is relevant.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 20:30:58 GMT -5
He would be non-consenting to her choice to keep the pregnancy. Just pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguments. If you'd like me stop don't post things that are so easy to pick apart. You decided to bring up the non-consenting tangent while discussing something that involves and has repercussions for two parties but where only one of those parties has any choice in the matter. If you don't see the blatant double standard that's on you. Okay, I guess you are being unintentionally obtuse. Not sure that is an improvement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 20:44:23 GMT -5
So, he's responsible for a choice that she makes 100% on her own and against his wishes. Again, that doesn't strike you as the least bit unfair to him? No it doesn't. Nature has given him the automatic advantage of not being able to get pregnant. The right to an abortion if she chooses it is also a nature given advantage. The fact that she can have an abortion does not mean she has to or that the child has to sacrifice it's rights because she didn't. Those are two things each sex has to live with and you don't get any compensation for it. If you want to discuss rights and responsibilities once a child is born we can talk.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 20:51:30 GMT -5
Let's make this really simple. You chose to bring up the idea of a non-consenting other having a decision forced on them. You honestly don't see the double standard there since we're already talking about a decision that's 100% up to the woman, with no input whatsoever from the man, but he's held responsible for her decision? Like, really? Then you accuse me of being obtuse. Seriously, just admit that there's a double standard, or that bringing up the non-consenting other meme in this context was a blunder. It's not that hard. Continuing to pretend you can't see the double standard is making you look ridiculous. Yes, let's make it really simple.
1. Both parties are responsible for the pregnancy. Both have implied consent and assumption of risk issues with regard to the pregnancy. Therefore neither can in any way be considered to be non-consenting with respect to the pregnancy.
2. In the context of this discussion and any case relevant to this discussion, the woman would be considered non-consenting to any proposed right of the man to abdicate responsibility for the pregnancy or any outcome of it.
3. He is not having responsibility forced on him by her decision. He already has that burden as a result of having unprotected sex which then resulted in a pregnancy. She could choose to absolve both parties of responsibility, but is under no obligation to do so. Not making that decision does not alter the shared responsibility. It remains unchanged.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 20:54:06 GMT -5
But it isn't. If she makes the choice then both sides are absolved. If he is granted that choice then only one side is absolved, while the other is subject to a double-share of the responsibility.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 16, 2015 20:54:26 GMT -5
He would be non-consenting to her choice to keep the pregnancy. Just pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguments. If you'd like me stop don't post things that are so easy to pick apart. You decided to bring up the non-consenting tangent while discussing something that involves and has repercussions for two parties but where only one of those parties has any choice in the matter. If you don't see the blatant double standard that's on you. Okay, I guess you are being unintentionally obtuse. Not sure that is an improvement. I knew this thread would pay off! Another entry for my Tall-to-English dictionary. Phrase | Actual Meaning | ... | ... | In my wildest dreams I would not be able to approach the level of ridiculousness which you apparently find both natural and effortless.
| I have no idea how to rebut your arguments.
| My position is clear, and I am absolutely confident in it.
| I have no idea how to rebut your arguments.
| I think you need to go back to both drama class and logic class, and a refresher on reading comprehension might not be a bad idea either.
| I have no idea how to rebut your arguments.
| I guess you are being unintentionally obtuse.*
| I have no idea how to rebut your arguments.
| ... | ... |
*newly added!Just 35 more and I'll have the complete Volume I set!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 20:58:33 GMT -5
There's nothing natural about that right at all. It's a right created by man when our medical knowledge allowed us to safely perform them. At that point women still didn't have the right because the procedure was outlawed. It was years later that the supreme court changed that. It's not nature, it's not biology, it's medicine and case law. I'm saying that since we've legally given women that choice, there should be a corresponding legal ability for the man to opt out if he disagrees with her choice. Seems more fair and equal to me. Or, take all choice out of it. Outlaw abortion again. If a pregnancy happens neither party gets a say in what happens, and they're both equally responsible. Again, fair and equal. The former is probably a better solution than the latter because society suffers when you force people to raise kids they don't want. They end up abused, neglected, turning to crime and drugs, etc. Either way, nature has nothing to do with it, it's a question of laws. Nature has everything to do with it. When men get pregnant they can make the choice to abort or not. Without repercussions for either choice. You might be able to convince me that men should have the right to abdicate parental responsibilities but you will never do it by attaching it to a woman's right to choose.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 21:00:50 GMT -5
They're a lot easier to rebut if they counter my actual arguments. He's mis-stated me several times here. Regardless, you've added nothing, as usual.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:03:59 GMT -5
When it comes to abortion yes. See my earlier post when it comes to talking about options after a child is born. At that point there is room to discuss who can abdicate responsibility, in what circumstances and how they could do it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 16, 2015 21:05:07 GMT -5
He is not having responsibility forced on him by her decision. He already has that burden as a result of having unprotected sex which then resulted in a pregnancy. She could choose to absolve both parties of responsibility, but is under no obligation to do so. Not making that decision does not alter the shared responsibility. It remains unchanged. If I may: The whole point is that in our society, raising a child is not deemed a legal responsibility of the parents. If that were the case, the woman wouldn't have the choice to abort. If you want to make a compelling case, find us any other place in western law where two independent parties are responsible for upholding the terms of a legal contract but one and only one of the parties has the legal option to dissolve the contract. I can't think of a single one, except where one of the parties is the state. Can you?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 16, 2015 21:08:16 GMT -5
They're a lot easier to rebut if they counter my actual arguments. He's mis-stated me several times here. Regardless, you've added nothing, as usual. It seems I'm in good company, then. Unless you think criticisms about being obtuse are somehow adding to the debate.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 21:09:19 GMT -5
You're so close to being on the right track here. The choice to abort absolves BOTH parties. It IS fair and equal (assuming that neither want the baby) because they remain equally responsible. Or if the fetus is carried to term, holding them both responsible is again fair and equal, as you stated. How can you state it here but not understand it in the other posts?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:11:48 GMT -5
He is not having responsibility forced on him by her decision. He already has that burden as a result of having unprotected sex which then resulted in a pregnancy. She could choose to absolve both parties of responsibility, but is under no obligation to do so. Not making that decision does not alter the shared responsibility. It remains unchanged. If I may: The whole point is that in our society, raising a child is not deemed a legal responsibility of the parents. If that were the case, the woman wouldn't have the choice to abort.
Untrue, a fetus is not a child. It does not have the same rights as a child.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:16:04 GMT -5
I am not for a second 2nd guessing the fact that a woman's right of choice entitles the man to nothing. That in no way justifies giving him the right to abdicate his parental responsibilities. The woman's right to give the child up for adoption is something that should be open to the man as well, or some kind of equivalent right.
However! and it is a big however, if either the mother or father chooses to raise the child alone we do need to think about what rights a child has.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:19:32 GMT -5
If men could "opt out" and the woman chooses to accept responsibility (by choosing to carry to term, and choosing to keep the child... two free choices that the woman is rightfully allowed to make) there is no "non-consenting other". As it stands now, the only possible "non-consenting other" is the father on the hook for 18 years for a child he did not want. False on both counts. There is a child that he helped create that is being harmed by that choice. And the man has both "implied consent" and "assumption of risk" issues here. He is not in any case a "non-consenting other." True on both counts. The child (if the fetus makes it to birth) is not harmed, because a child has no "right" to support from both biological parents (otherwise children could NOT be adopted out, nor could the State take them from unfit parents... both of which CLEARLY do happen in today's society, without any of the changes proposed in this thread). When she has a choice to have the child and forc him to pay child support, and he doesn't have any choice in the matter he is "non-consenting" if his choice would be to not participate and she forces him to. That's the very definition of "non-consenting"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:22:13 GMT -5
so, either abort, or adopt it out. your choice, right? I do believe the father has the right to raise the child over being adopted out. Or even over the mother if he is in a better position for parenting and providing. So my question is relevant for the mother's in those situations as well. You would be wrong. And you would know this if you didn't have me on "ignore". I posted links to proof that the father cannot stop a mother from putting the child up for adoption. The best he can do is contest the adoption, request a hearing and HOPE they rule in favor of him taking the child. They could just as easily rule against him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:24:58 GMT -5
How can it possibly be a double standard to hold both responsible parties...RESPONSIBLE?
The double standard is you, Richard, dj, and maybe a couple others who want to allow one party to unilaterally and totally escape responsibility. Wrong again. Giving them the same option to "opt out" is not the same as "escaping responsibility". Unless (as has been pointed out numerous times) you are advocating taking the rights of women to "escape responsibility", via abortion or adopting out, away. Is that what you are suggesting?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:28:22 GMT -5
Do you guys get the fact that you are turning the woman's right to choice into a get out of jail free card for men? For many women abortion is not an option for any number of reasons. So what you guys are saying is too bad, she has the right to abort so no matter what physical, mental or spiritual reasons she has for not doing it is on her. Her having that right means men having no responsibilities? No. Because it's not a "Fact". It's not even close. What's being said is "YOU want the choice (which all of us fully support, by the way)? YOU take the responsibility. You shouldn't get to force that responsibility on others"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:30:13 GMT -5
It could be against her religion, she might believe a fetus is a child and have a moral problem with it, she could be concerned about potential physical side effects... i see. so the man is now on the hook for someone else's religious beliefs? wow. ok. didn't see that coming.I did.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:32:13 GMT -5
i see. so the man is now on the hook for someone else's religious beliefs? wow. ok. didn't see that coming. Well, technically he would be on the hook because he helped create a pregnancy. That responsibility would not be waived for him as a result of someone else's religious beliefs. I think the distinction is relevant. MAYBE... if they had identical religious beliefs. But even then it's only a "maybe".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 16, 2015 21:35:31 GMT -5
If I may: The whole point is that in our society, raising a child is not deemed a legal responsibility of the parents. If that were the case, the woman wouldn't have the choice to abort.
Untrue, a fetus is not a child. It does not have the same rights as a child. My point exactly. The father didn't conceive a child. He conceived a fetus. The fetus has no rights, and the father has no legal responsibility to take care of it. If the mother's decides to carry it to term and convert it to a child, the rights resulting therefrom are solely a contract between her and the nascent child. The contract comes into effect when the child "comes into existence" at birth. The father has nothing to do with the child excepting the fact that he provided the raw genetic material the mother used to craft a non-child (fetus). If the mother converts the non-child into a child, he bears no responsibility for the latter product. The reasonable limitation of his liability should be paying a half share of the cost to dispose of the non-child should the mother not wish to convert it into a child. I realize this sounds utterly ridiculous, but it's what makes sense if we embrace a stark distinction between the fetus and the child. Legally we have to accept that the father really has nothing to do with the child. He's an ancillary, anonymous sperm donor.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 21:44:47 GMT -5
Virgil I can appreciate that is how your mind works, thankfully the law doesn't see it the same way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 22:29:15 GMT -5
Virgil I can appreciate that is how your mind works, thankfully the law doesn't see it the same way.I Can't fathom why there's anything to be thankful for in that. If it was a correctable inequality against women, laterbloomer would be screaming to high heaven about the injustice.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 16, 2015 22:58:49 GMT -5
Virgil I can appreciate that is how your mind works, thankfully the law doesn't see it the same way. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that fathers should have the right to abandon their children by opting out of child support. To be perfectly clear, I consider a fetus to be a human child like any other, in an early stage of development, and I consider western society's wanton disregard of this fact for sake of convenience to be one of the greatest--if not the greatest--injustice ever perpetrated by humankind. That's how my mind works. Having said this, if we accept the magistrates' ruling that the fetus isn't a child, one of the logical consequences stemming from this ruling is that the father doesn't actually conceive a child. Only the mother is capable of yielding a child, which comes into legal existence at birth by the mother's choice to convert a fetus into a child. The father is no more responsible for the child than Home Depot would be for a restaurant I built using construction supplies they sold me. They have no say in what I do with the supplies. When I open the restaurant and take on new responsibilities associated with operating it, they inherit no liability or responsibility as a consequence of that decision. Their responsibility started and ended with the completed sale of the supplies. I happen to agree with you that it's a good thing fathers are held to account for children they bear, but this definitely isn't because the requirement is fair or sensible if we accept the courts' views on the fetus. If we accept their view, the sensible conclusion is that the father has nothing to do with the child. He has neither rights nor responsibilities. And as I challenged Tall: you won't find a legal precedent anywhere else in western law consistent with how child support is handled today. I like to think it's handled the way it is because deep down even the courts recognize that Roe v. Wade was a nonsensical ruling and that society shouldn't be burdened by the nonsensical conclusions that logically stem from it (e.g. the father's complete legal dissociation from the human being the mother ultimately gives birth to).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:26:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 0:03:35 GMT -5
I've decided we should compromise. Since we can't agree on whether giving one parent the entirety of the decision making ability but holding both responsible is fair, we'll switch off. In odd numbered years the woman gets to decide whether a pregnancy should be aborted or carried to term. If it's carried to term, both parents are financially responsible. In even numbered years the man gets to decide, and if he decides that it should be carried to term, both parents are financially responsible. There's apparently no inequality about having one person make the decision for both of them, so surely later, tall, et all won't object to letting the man make the decision half the time that way both genders get a say. I know (or at least HOPE) that was said in jest... but even said in jest I cannot support anything that would take the right of choice away from the woman. I guess that's proof that I'm not the misogynist that laterbloomer believes me to be.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 17, 2015 2:47:53 GMT -5
They're a lot easier to rebut if they counter my actual arguments. He's mis-stated me several times here. Regardless, you've added nothing, as usual. It's exceedingly rare to see anything added to a discussion by one who targets the poster(s) instead of the subject of the discussion.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 17, 2015 3:39:54 GMT -5
They're a lot easier to rebut if they counter my actual arguments. He's mis-stated me several times here. Regardless, you've added nothing, as usual. It's exceedingly rare to see anything added to a discussion by one who targets the poster(s) instead of the subject of the discussion. Sometimes it profits the discussion to point out that a poster(s)'s rhetorical quips about drama classes, reading comprehension, levels of ridiculousness, and unintentional obtuseness don't suffice as counterarguments, and that (s)he should probably switch strategies.
|
|